돌아가기 TOEFL Speaking C2 (6.0) English (US) – Take an Interview

Discussing Free Speech and Student Safety

영어 말하기 시나리오

Ada

A calm British English speaker with a warm, focused manner.

34 years · female

Practise talking about "Discussing Free Speech and Student Safety" with Ada, your AI speaking avatar. Speak out loud, get instant feedback, and build confidence for your TOEFL iBT C2 speaking exam.

Start free AI practice

대화

How should universities balance free speech and student safety?

대학은 표현의 자유와 학생 안전 사이에서 어떻게 균형을 맞춰야 할까요?

좋은 답변:

Universities should begin by treating free speech as a condition for serious inquiry, not as a decorative value to be abandoned when disagreement becomes uncomfortable. Students need to hear claims they may reject, test arguments publicly and learn how knowledge is challenged. At the same time, safety cannot be reduced to oversensitivity. Threats, targeted harassment and intimidation can prevent students from participating at all. The balance should therefore distinguish between discomfort caused by difficult ideas and harm caused by exclusion or coercion. A university that protects only comfort becomes intellectually timid; a university that ignores real danger becomes morally careless. The aim is a culture where challenge is possible because basic security is protected for everyone who enters the discussion.

대학은 먼저 자유로운 발언을 진지한 탐구의 조건으로 받아들여야 합니다. 의견이 달라져 불편해진다고 해서 버려도 되는 장식 같은 가치로 보면 안 됩니다. 학생들은 자신이 받아들이지 않을 수도 있는 주장도 들어야 하고, 공개적으로 논점을 검토하면서 지식이 어떻게 도전받는지 배워야 합니다. 동시에 안전을 지나친 예민함으로만 볼 수는 없습니다. 협박, 특정인을 겨냥한 괴롭힘, 위협은 학생들이 아예 참여하지 못하게 만들 수 있습니다. 따라서 균형은 어려운 생각 때문에 생기는 불편함과 배제나 강요로 인해 생기는 피해를 구분해야 합니다. 편안함만 지키는 대학은 지적으로 소심해지고, 실제 위험을 무시하는 대학은 도덕적으로 무책임해집니다. 목표는 토론에 들어오는 모든 사람의 기본적인 안전이 지켜지기 때문에 도전이 가능한 문화를 만드는 것입니다.

What is the danger of defining harm too broadly or too narrowly?

좋은 답변:

If harm is defined too broadly, difficult ideas can be treated as injuries, and inquiry becomes timid. A student might claim that a challenging historical argument or political position is harmful simply because it is distressing to hear. If the university accepts that definition automatically, it may train students to avoid disagreement rather than reason through it. But if harm is defined too narrowly, real intimidation may be ignored. For example, repeated targeted abuse after a classroom debate is not just a normal exchange of views. The danger lies in collapsing different situations into one category. Universities need language precise enough to protect intellectual risk while responding firmly to conduct that blocks participation in classrooms, events and online spaces around campus.

How would you answer someone who says safety should always come before speech?

좋은 답변:

I would first acknowledge that safety is fundamental. Students cannot learn properly if they are threatened, stalked, targeted or made afraid to enter the classroom. In those cases, safety must come before someone's wish to intimidate or abuse others. However, the phrase "safety before speech" becomes dangerous if safety is defined so broadly that it includes ordinary intellectual discomfort. Universities exist partly to examine claims that unsettle students' assumptions. If every unsettling claim can be removed as unsafe, the institution may stop being a place of serious inquiry. I would therefore support safety as a real condition for participation, but reject using it as a general veto over difficult speech in academic settings where disagreement has educational value for students.

What should universities avoid when writing policies on speech and safety?

좋은 답변:

Universities should avoid vague language that allows almost any speech to be punished or almost any harm to be dismissed. Ambiguity gives too much room for selective enforcement. One controversial speaker may be restricted because administrators dislike the politics, while another incident of targeted harassment may be minimised because it is inconvenient to investigate. Policy should define key terms, describe processes and explain what evidence is required. It should also preserve space for judgement, because no document can anticipate every case. Long term, legitimacy depends on students believing that the rules are not being invented for each controversy. Clear language cannot solve every conflict, but it reduces the suspicion that power is being used arbitrarily against whichever side is least popular.